Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[Miragememories]

First off, don't worry about not seeing my post, it is a fast moving thread.
Second, thank you for your response.
Third, I find this quoted material telling. You say that it was a symmetrical collapse, but the mechanical penthouse collapsed a number of seconds before the collapse of the rest of the building. This also suggests that the collapse was not as "high speed" as you may think. Does this cause you to re-evaluate your position at all?

I agree, the mechanical penthouse, what was it half a story?, did indeed collapse before the main 47 story main building.

It's my opinion that the 'style of collapse' of the 47-story main structure holds greater significance than that of the 1/2 story mechanical penthouse which preceded it.

A demolition expert, Danny Jowenko agrees with me, regardless of the fact that he sees the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 differently.

MM

 

[Par]

I agree, the mechanical penthouse, what was it half a story?, did indeed collapse before the main 47 story main building

Given that it sank into the main superstructure, it follows that appreciably more than one (not “half) of a storey was subject to collapse.

 

[TheRedWorm]

It does not matter the size of the penthouse, it only matters that it happened seconds before the collapse of the main structure. Also, when Mr. Jowenko was shown the collapse of WTC7, he was not show the collapse of the penthouse. Can you think of why this information would have been withheld from him?

 

[Miragememories]

Way to dodge the point.

You specifically stated that believing WTC 7 was demolished brings into question 1 & 2. I pointed out that your expert disagrees- you can't seem to resolve that.

If anyone is dodging a point, it is those who ignore his professional opinion about WTC7.

Since you agree with his opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2, and I agree with his opinion about WTC 7, I don't see your point?

You aren't discrediting him which makes my point about WTC7 stand!

MM

 

[gumboot]

My favourite thing about CTers citing Jowenko is that for his testimony to be useful, essentially you have to have a theory that the inside jobbers flew two airliners into buildings, either expecting them not to collapse, or just hoping blind they would while simultaneously deciding to rig a third random building with explosive and blow the sucker up, for no reason whatsoever. What if WTC1 and WTC2 hadn't collapsed? Those inside jobbers would really really look like morons.

-Gumboot

 

[Par]

A demolition expert, Danny Jowenko agrees with me...

I look forward to his paper on the subject.

 

[Par]

A demolition expert, Danny Jowenko agrees with me, regardless of the fact that he sees the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 differently.

Even if we are to take Jowenko's statement seriously, we must then conclude that the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 were not the result of controlled demolitions.

 

[johnny karate]

I wonder what kind of car MM drives. I bet it's a Dodge.

And MM, if you ever get to Kansas, you might want to check out Dodge City. I hear it's nice.

A lot of people will tell you that Oliver Twist is Dickens' best character. But personally, I prefer The Artful Dodger. Wouldn't you agree, MM?

 

[CptColumbo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, is Jowenko the person who based his opinion (and qualified it as such) solely on the one angle of the video, and has since recanted? Or is that another CD expert I'm thinking of?

 

[Totovader]

If anyone is dodging a point, it is those who ignore his professional opinion about WTC7.

Since you agree with his opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2, and I agree with his opinion about WTC 7, I don't see your point?

You aren't discrediting him which makes my point about WTC7 stand!

MM

I'm not ignoring anything- in fact, I've been trying to get you to admit it.

Instead you try and dance around the issue.

I am discrediting him- actually you are.

I agree with his position on 1 and 2- but not because of his expertise, I do not agree with his position on 7, and his position on 1 and 2 shows why: he was mislead during the interview. He was only shown a small portion of the collapse, after the building had already started to collapse- from a specific angle. He was also extremely skeptical of his own position, unsure of how to resolve it. He did not change his mind on 1 and 2- and appeared to be quite reserved about 7.

I love it when conspiracists use Jowenko- because he debunks the claim.

 

[Miragememories]

It does not matter the size of the penthouse, it only matters that it happened seconds before the collapse of the main structure. Also, when Mr. Jowenko was shown the collapse of WTC7, he was not show the collapse of the penthouse. Can you think of why this information would have been withheld from him?

What proof do you have that Danny Jowenko has not seen the collapse of the penthouse?

In a telephone interview this year, he reiterated his opinion about the controlled demolition nature of the collapse of WTC7 and also indicated he had done a significant amount of research on his own since his original video interview.

He stands by his original opinion.

If you have doubts about this, I suggest you phone him yourself.

MM

 

[Par]

In a telephone interview this year, he reiterated his opinion about the controlled demolition nature of the collapse of WTC7 and also indicated he had done a significant amount of research on his own since his original video interview. He stands by his original opinion. If you have doubts about this, I suggest you phone him yourself.

I look forward to his paper on the subject.

 

[Miragememories]

I'm not ignoring anything- in fact, I've been trying to get you to admit it.

Instead you try and dance around the issue.

I am discrediting him- actually you are.

I agree with his position on 1 and 2- but not because of his expertise, I do not agree with his position on 7, and his position on 1 and 2 shows why: he was mislead during the interview. He was only shown a small portion of the collapse, after the building had already started to collapse- from a specific angle. He was also extremely skeptical of his own position, unsure of how to resolve it. He did not change his mind on 1 and 2- and appeared to be quite reserved about 7.

I love it when conspiracists use Jowenko- because he debunks the claim.

I suggest you bolster your argument with substantiation rather than empty words.

Danny Jowenko has repeated his opinion about WTC7 and has not said anything that suggests any doubt in his opinion.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

I remember reading about the Jowenko interview in one of the myriad threads on this sub-forum. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I am mistaken, and Mr. Jowenko was shown the entire collapse, including the penthouse collapse. How did/does he explain the fact that the penthouse collapsed a noticeable time before the rest of the structure?

 

[stateofgrace]

If anyone is dodging a point, it is those who ignore his professional opinion about WTC7.

Since you agree with his opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2, and I agree with his opinion about WTC 7, I don't see your point?

You aren't discrediting him which makes my point about WTC7 stand!

MM

Really? , so did he state why WTC 7 was demolished? emmm no.

Are you going to state why MM?

Emmmmmm ( enter answer).

 

[Totovader]

I suggest you bolster your argument with substantiation rather than empty words.

Danny Jowenko has repeated his opinion about WTC7 and has not said anything that suggests any doubt in his opinion.

MM

I suggest you stop dodging the fact that Jowenko is no support for your case and answer to the contradiction.

 

[Par]

Danny Jowenko has repeated his opinion about WTC7 and has not said anything that suggests any doubt in his opinion.

So, do you accept that the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 were not the result of controlled demolitions?

 

[johnny karate]

I don't know about MM, but as a youth, I used to love playing dodge ball.

 

[Par]

I don't know about MM, but as a youth, I used to love playing dodge ball.

I think he wants to have his kaken and eat it, too.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If anyone is dodging a point, it is those who ignore his professional opinion about WTC7.

Since you agree with his opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2, and I agree with his opinion about WTC 7, I don't see your point?

You aren't discrediting him which makes my point about WTC7 stand!

MM

do you agree with him about WTC 1+2?

if not, why do you think his analysis of those collapses is flawed?

furthermore, why do you feel his analysis of WTC7 is less flawed?



youll notice that debunkers here will not bring up jowenko to support our case, we have plenty of experts who agree with us more than 33% of the time to cite

truthers on other hand are forced to use what little support they have to full advantage, while silently overlooking their own contradictions